4 ms·
I hope the algorithm becomes published and unencumbered by any onerous restrictions. I understand that this is a unique system, though - and likely one where pa
by cr0sh 9y ago
I hope the algorithm becomes published and unencumbered by any onerous restrictions. I understand that this is a unique system, though - and likely one where patents and other "protections" could be taken out for the method and implementations.
But right now, all we have to "play with" is a window binary. I understand that there is supposed to be a paper published in the future; I would love to see this algorithm implemented into something more "universal", if nothing else.
Again, though, I can also see why such an algorithm could be protected - I am certain there are more than a few commercial applications for it, and perhaps in areas that have little to nothing to do with origami (for instance - and I am probably completely off base here - could this be applied in some manner to understanding protein folding?).
- gilleain 9y ago> could this be applied in some manner to understanding protein folding? Ehhh. Probably not? It's hard to say without the algorithm, really. The main problem (apart from not modelling any of the chemistry of proteins) would be what your target shape would be. You can consider a folded protein to be the 'blob' formed by taking the surface formed by rolling a water across the outer atoms. Or you could consider just the backbone as a kind of tube. An origami pattern for just the surface would have no internals. On the other hand, the pattern for the backbone would tell you nothing about how the sidechains and backbone interact.
- dnautics 9y agoWhy would it? The transformation here is different. Flat, 2d manifold to a nondifferentiable surface in 3-space. Vs. 1d manifold embedded in 3-space. All they have in common is the term of art 'folding' and embedding into 3 space from q lower dimension.
- thomasahle 9y agoGiven that both authors are pure mathematicians, rather than engineers, I don't have the impression that they really care to monetize this. MIT could possibly claim patents on their behalf though.
- tracked24x7 9y ago> Given that both authors are pure mathematicians .. Erik Demaine is a computer scientist: https://youtu.be/3e1ZF1L1VhY https://youtu.be/3e1ZF1L1VhY
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- eachro 9y agotheoretical computer scientist
- lawless123 9y agoI believe he exists.
- AnthonBerg 9y agoThat's the only type of computer scientist. Anything else is, say, a programmer or a software developer. Which there is nothing wrong with.
- Cursuviam 9y agoErik could toss it to someone in CSAIL to monetize, if he wanted to. There was a group I worked with that collaborated with him for the math for some folding robots.
- ferdterguson 9y agoThis is more likely to be applied to topology optimization imo