4 ms·
Right, my point is that it's as solved as it can really be as far as human understanding is concerned. There are too many variables at play to have any sort of
by alar44 5y ago
Right, my point is that it's as solved as it can really be as far as human understanding is concerned. There are too many variables at play to have any sort of elegant solution like Ohm's law or calculating an orbit. The best we can do is find different/more efficient/novel methods to calculate it. Am I wrong?
- dekhn 5y agoThe problem is ill-posed, not that we lack a solution.
- alar44 5y agoCan you elaborate on why it's ill-posed?
- majewsky 5y agoWhen you say: > it's as solved as it can really be as far as human understanding is concerned You handwave away several interesting parts of the problem without providing real justification for why that would be necessary or acceptable. It's like saying "politicians are made up of atoms, and since we know how atoms interact, our understanding of politics is reasonably complete".
- dekhn 5y agoproteins don't fold to their energy minimum, they typically "collapse" to an intermediate state and then sample many different states (kinetically), rather than adopting the absolute thermodynamic minimum. In many proteins, the structure snapshot doesn't even correspond to a functionally active protein. The "protein folding problem is NP-hard is an entirely inaccurate view of the biophysics of folding", and if solved, would not address any useful question about folding. What DeepMind solved was a far simpler problem: reproduce the structures that get produced by some experimental method. That's a well posed problem but ultimately a less interesting one, even if it's immediately "useful".