X-Message-Number: 12776 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: some comments on molecular memories Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:51:26 +1100 (EST) A bit for George Smith: What the Yale news release describes sounds much like other proposals for molecular-sized memory, of which there have been several (if you read scientific, chemical, and electrical journals as I do). It's not even clear from the news release just how these guys plan to actually make a computer (the pieces have several different kinds of implementations; the problem right now is to put them together so that the result works). I am actually optimistic that this can be done, but one small memory or one small switch does not make a computer. Sure, if you have them you're ahead of where you'd be if you had nothing at all, but we still have to work out how to make a set of components which CAN BE CONNECTED and work together. In the computer world the main reason for all that work seems to be simple: the opportunities for miniaturizing parts made of silicon have almost been used up. And so as expected researchers are looking around for other ways to make computers. And eventually they will find them. If nothing else, they'll find not a general computer but ways to make special devices which act as computers for special purposes. (I'm even optimistic about the possibility of a "general" computer, though it's unlikely to be any more general that present computers... and so far no computer is TOTALLY general ie. can work usefully on all known problems (if you object to this, recall that Turing didn't consider the time taken to be important at all)). But a single memory does not a computer make. Nor does a single switch. And the builders of this memory, if pressed, should be able to cite predecessors who made other molecular memories and switches, or they're being dishonest. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12776