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