Talk:CH391L/S13/DNA Computing

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge|Kevin Baldridge]] 16:39, 1 April 2013 (EDT)''':How did he select against those which were not applicable? The combinatorial approach that gave all possible answers yields so many possibilities, I don't see how this is any improvement over traditional computer brute force approach if you can't eliminate the problem of selecting possible answers.
*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge|Kevin Baldridge]] 16:39, 1 April 2013 (EDT)''':How did he select against those which were not applicable? The combinatorial approach that gave all possible answers yields so many possibilities, I don't see how this is any improvement over traditional computer brute force approach if you can't eliminate the problem of selecting possible answers.
 +
**'''[[User: Siddharth Das|Siddharth Das]] 16:39, 1 April 2013 (EDT): Granted this methodology isn't an elegant as computations conducted by normal computers, but "brute force" allows find solutions for highly combinatorial problems. In other words, DNA computing vs electronic computing is in essence memory vs. time, respectively. The amount of memory an electronic computer needs to allocate to solve a problem would never fulfill the requirements to screen for solutions such as combinatorial, factorization, and etc. For example in RSA cryptography, basically packages of data are stored in prime numbers (795028841 X 25209506681 = 20042284878777186721) shared between two parties. As an "eavesdropper", the number 20042284878777186721 (lock) means nothing to you  and thus prompts you to factorize the incredibly huge number. Without using the RSA algorithm (key), the eavesdropper must rely on simply "brute forcing" the decryption process which is where DNA computing would be advantageous. 
 +
*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 16:42, 1 April 2013 (EDT)''':DNA cryptography?
*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 16:42, 1 April 2013 (EDT)''':DNA cryptography?
 +
**'''[[User:Siddharth Das|Siddharth Das]] 16:45, 1 April 2013 (EDT)''':
 +
*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge|Kevin Baldridge]] 16:45, 1 April 2013 (EDT)''':I think I might have shared this paper before, but it is very directly related to some of the topics you discuss here [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22722847 Single Cell Programmable Biocomputers]
*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge|Kevin Baldridge]] 16:45, 1 April 2013 (EDT)''':I think I might have shared this paper before, but it is very directly related to some of the topics you discuss here [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22722847 Single Cell Programmable Biocomputers]

Revision as of 18:12, 1 April 2013

  • Kevin Baldridge 16:39, 1 April 2013 (EDT):How did he select against those which were not applicable? The combinatorial approach that gave all possible answers yields so many possibilities, I don't see how this is any improvement over traditional computer brute force approach if you can't eliminate the problem of selecting possible answers.
    • Siddharth Das 16:39, 1 April 2013 (EDT): Granted this methodology isn't an elegant as computations conducted by normal computers, but "brute force" allows find solutions for highly combinatorial problems. In other words, DNA computing vs electronic computing is in essence memory vs. time, respectively. The amount of memory an electronic computer needs to allocate to solve a problem would never fulfill the requirements to screen for solutions such as combinatorial, factorization, and etc. For example in RSA cryptography, basically packages of data are stored in prime numbers (795028841 X 25209506681 = 20042284878777186721) shared between two parties. As an "eavesdropper", the number 20042284878777186721 (lock) means nothing to you and thus prompts you to factorize the incredibly huge number. Without using the RSA algorithm (key), the eavesdropper must rely on simply "brute forcing" the decryption process which is where DNA computing would be advantageous.
Personal tools