Re: 1teraflops cell processor possible?

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:49:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Robert Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Computers won't necessarily find a cure or a vaccine for AIDS, but
>> computers could revolutionize molecular biology the way they
>> revolutionized aerodynamics.  We are just at the point of being able
>> to contemplate the undertaking, but we need much more powerful
>> computers.  We need to start trying harder, and we need to stop being
>> cheap about it.
>
>I would have to disagree.  My PhD was in protein structure prediction
>and now I work in genomics and statistical genetics.  Revolutionary
>advances in these fields are going to come from new algorithms, not
>from running existing algorithms on faster computers.  Faster
>computers sometimes do help, of course.  But I think throwing money at
>the hardware side of the problem now is a waste, since we don't really
>know yet what the "right" algorithms will look like.
>

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respectfully disagree with it.

If you haven't already done so, please read my post of 11/24 in
response to Patrick Schaaf, and the IBM document that is cited
therein:

www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/402/allen.pdf

My conclusion:

RM>The problems they face are too numerous to discuss in a single web
RM>post, but the bottom line is that they will have to use up months, 
RM>if not years, of computing time to get results using models that 
RM>are at best educated guesses.
RM>
RM>If there is a parallel in the history of science, I am not aware of
RM>it.  The US wants to build the world's biggest computer, IBM wants 
RM>to build it for them, and both need a problem that justifies such 
RM>an enormous expenditure of money and talent.  The conclusion that 
RM>they should reach, that the available computational muscle 
RM>available to them is not up to the task they have proposed is one 
RM>they are unwilling to reach.

If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right.

RM